Analysis of the IMERG-GPM Precipitation Product Analysis in Brazilian Midwestern Basins Considering Different Time and Spatial Scales

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In general, all responses to my comments are clear.  A new version of the manuscript has been improved in the sense of presentation of material including new references. Nevertheless, given the text in Introduction, I expected more attention to extreme precipitation events. Therefore, I recommend commenting on this problem more accurately.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see attached review document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting study, where the skill of the IMERG was assessed in two midwestern river basins of Brazil. The article is short and easy to follow. I really enjoyed reading this article. I have one concern though. Here, the interpolation was carried out using the kriging technique. This might be appropriate for places where enough gauge data are available at different couture levels. Since, these basins are poorly gauged, I think it would be more appropriate to consider the terrain (i.e., DEM) during the interpolation process (like PRISM).

A few minor comments:
1) Table-1, which stations were discarded from the interpolation process. Please provide the average precipitation of these stations.
2) Page-9; Line-287, should be Table-4 in place of Table-3 in the text?
3) Table-3 and Table-4, Please add the station SL# (e.g., 1, 18) in the table. This will help connect these tables to Figure-1
4) Figure-8, I think a difference map (i.e., IMERG – obs) will be helpful to visualize the spatial distribution of bias.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have put substantial effort into addressing my concerns, and they have done a good job of addressing the caveats of certain limitations in their study.  This is a good scientific approach, and I commend their efforts.  Any remaining issues I have with the manuscript are minor, and none are worth addressing further; therefore, I recommend the manuscript be accepted for publication.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It seems that the manuscript does not contain any fundamentally new scientific results. The task of comparing satellite data with gauges/stations is certainly relevant, but it is easy enough to give examples of similar publications: see, for example, doi: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2018.02.010, doi: 10.3390/w10111665 or doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2020.111697. Exactly the same analysis tools were used in papers 2-4 years ago, but for other geographical areas. Moreover, there is a new one comparing 14 bases at once (doi: 10.1080/02626667.2021.2022152). Why is your data so important? Why has no further analysis been carried out based on the comparison, for example, the extreme precipitation events mentioned in the introduction? Thus, the contribution of the article should be explained as clearly as possible.

 

There are also a few minor comments:

1. The third column of Table 2 should contain "MAE" instead of "EAM" as well "RMSE" instead of "REQM" and "PBIAS" instead of "BIAS". Corresponding corrections are also required for the abstract.
2. On figs. 2-3 accuracy metrics are presented incorrectly (see their names).

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see attached report.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf